b) Group assignment will be done using similar format as Nation's Cup rule 13.5 and/or adapted adequately to the number of teams registered.

What does rule 13.5 say ?

11-16: Round robin, 2 groups, with QF, SF and F. #1s choose opponent of other group in QF; cannot meet other #1 in SF, cannot meet best classified of own group in SF.
11: (1,4,5,8,9) and (2,3,6,7,10,11), 9 weeks
12: (1,4,5,8,9,12) and (2,3,6,7,10,11), 9 weeks

Point being: After the places are decided, the teams finishing #1 in Atomic and Big Bang will choose their opponent. After those choices, then the highest finishing teams not chosen, goes into the slot away from the #1 team's side of the play-off bracket.

Timeline: QF Line-up in by March 19, Line-ups posted March 20.
matches must be played by March 28.

SF Line-up in by March 29, Line-ups posted March 30.
matches must be played by April 7.

FINAL Line-up in by April 8, Line-ups posted April 9.
matches must be played by April 15.

In determining overall records for advancing to the knock-out/play-off phase, Clashes won is primary determining factor. In case of a tie, First tiebreaker is clashes won, then matches won, then points won, then TAG result, then AAT result, then US/EU result, then USA result.

According to this thread for QF's:
Timeline: QF Line-up in by March 19, Line-ups posted March 20.
matches must be played by March 28.

According to the ticki page for QF's:
Timeline: QF Line-up in by (Wednesday) March 19 by 11PM CEST/CET,
Line-ups posted by (Friday) March 20.
Matches must be played by (Sunday) March 28. by 11PM CEST/CET

28March2013 is a Thursday... to be clear which day/time is the deadline to have played all games the QF round?

In determining overall records for advancing to the knock-out/play-off phase, Clashes won is primary determining factor. In case of a tie, First tiebreaker is clashes won, then matches won, then points won, then TAG result, then AAT result, then US/EU result, then USA result.

Just a suggestion for the future of FC. I would recommend a tie breaker match instead of looking at the individual matches, in the playoffs. That tie breaker match is to be a random choice by the TD of the 3 single player matches, and the 2 players involved are chosen by the opposing teams captain. So, a tie during a clash would result in something a little more interesting and make everyone become better all around players for FC. There would be a large amount of strategy involved in picking the opposing player because the type of match would not be determined until after the players were chosen.

As a TD, you could create a random way to pick either AAT, US/Euro, or US (Maybe a roll of a die, 1 or 4 = AAT, 2 or 5 = US/EURO, 3 or 6 = US). Just my own input, but I don't like the idea of a tie coming down to a TAG match when most of the TTR community doesn't play TAG or rarely/never plays TAG. Since I saw that TAG match is first decider if everything else is a tie...

2 problems I see
1) While picking the player for the decider match from the opposing team certainly adds spice, I don't think it's feasible.
You pick s.o. who doesn't own all the AAT maps, dice rolling decides on AAT - now what?
You pick s.o. who isn't available at the given dates (or claims to be not available ) - now what?
We also would probably lose some teams/players, as nobody would like to add a weaker player or somebody with no experience but US, knowing that this player would always be picked for decider games.

2) Having a decider match has 2 flaws
a) It brings a huge risk that we cannot stick to the schedule. Imagine you and I had to play decider for the GURU-GANG match.
We would know that a decider is needed on Friday, after Chris vs Will. Therefore captains could decide Friday night who they want as opponent. TD rolls die on Saturday and publishes result. Finding a date on a Sunday at short notice is probably not realistic. So if none of us can take time off work, the match will be played a week later ...
b) It puts too much emphasis on a single player, as we saw in NC.
In NC is was on the strongest player, here it will be on the weakest (probably it would always be the same who is picked).

Maybe the rolling dice idea can be applied to determine the tiebreaker sequence.
Before each section (RR, QS, SF, F) starts, TD decides randomly which map is the first of those tiebreakers.

But well, that's probably all pretty academic, as we have games/points won as prior tiebreaker. This makes it a lot less likely to encounter the situation where a decider match would be needed than in NC.... and now let's hope that Chris and I don't win exactly 3 games in our remaining 2 matches to prove me wrong

I am saying this not just because of our match, but because a playoff match should have a clear winner. I think if there is a clear difference in games won, you have a winner.

But if there is a tie 2-2, and games are tied, like Truck stated; I don't love the idea of a tie breaker being based off of TAG, which is almost guaranteed to not be a tie. TAG is not a match that many people are experienced with, and there are clearly a small group of people who are experts with TAG, so I don't like the idea of that being the tie breaker.

So, instead of the initial proposed idea, maybe in the playoffs the captains send in the lineup with the 5 match player being if needed, still not knowing what the match would be. But when the TD posts the lineups, he posts tie breaker game if needed, lists what the match will be, and who the players are as sent in by the captains. That way, those 2 players can be in contact, and if you end the round on Thursday, you have 3 days to play the decider if needed...but the 2 players involved would already have the time to discuss when they could play in a 3 day window.

This would not delay the tournament very much, and would create an interesting variable. However, if it was only to be used in the case of a 2-2 tie, and a games tie as well (12-12), the tie breaker would not be used often, but would be a better way (in my opinion), to decide a match. I think if games won is clearly in favor of one team, that team is the winner and no decider is needed.